LAXMI NARAIN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the investigation of a case u/S. 406 of the IPC against Jugraj Singh, the police seized u/S. 165 of the CrPC the subject -matter of the offence, viz. a printing press, and handed it over to the supurdgi of one Munik Lal. It appears that Jugraj Singh then moved the Judicial Officer, Kanpur, for appointment of some other supurdar and the Judicial Officer obtained recommendations from the police of suitable persons and on the 11th June, 1969 appointed Satrughan Lal as supurdar in place of Munik Lal. It, however, transpired that the address of Satrughan Lal given by the police was not correct and the order of his appointment could not, therefore, be carried out. Jugraj Singh then made an application to the Judicial Officer giving the correct address of Satrughan Lal, but the learned Judicial Officer made a fresh order on the 14th June, 1969, appointing Vishwanath, another person on the panel submitted by the police, to be the supurdar. The charge sheet in the case was filed in court on the 7th July, 1969, and thus no enquiry or trial was pending before the Judicial Officer on the day of appointment of Vishwanath as supurdar. Laxmi Narayan the applicant in this case, unsuccessfully challenged the legality of the appointment of Vishwanath in a revision filed by him in the Court of the Addl. Distt. Magistrate (Judicial) and has raised the same question in this revision application. It has been contended by the learned counsel for Laxmi Narain that the Judicial Officer had no jurisdiction to make an order of disposal of the property seized by the police u/S. 165 of the CrPC in the course of investigation. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, sought to support the order as having been lawfully made u/S. 523(1) of the CrPC.

(2.) In Rampal v/s. State ( : 1956 AWR 556), D.N. Roy, J. independently and without referring to the decision in the case of Purshottam Das, came to the same conclusion.

(3.) The tenor of observations of D.P. Uniyal, J. in Sita Ram v/s. Bhagat Singh (1966 AWR 157) and in B.B. Jaiswal v/s. Safdar Ali (1966 AWR 801) is also to the same effect, even though the two earlier decisions were not cited before him. A contrary view has been expressed by some other High Courts, who have indicated, expressly or by implications, that S. 523 is, in substance, a residuary provision and a Magistrate can exercise his powers of disposal thereunder in situations not covered by his powers under provisions of the Code. Reference may be made to Sk. Muktear v/s. State ( : AIR 1954 Cal. 350), Mahomed Ali v/s. State ( : AIR 1957 AP 146), Ganeshi Lal Ranchhod Das v/s. Satya Narayan Tewari ( : AIR 1958 MP 39), Tara Chand v/s. State (53 CrLJ 476), Alikunju v/s. Alikunju ( : AIR 1960 Kerala 343) and Ajoy Raj Singh v/s. Raj Bahadur Singh ( : 69 CWN 663). In some of these cases the decision of this High Court in the case of Purshottam Dass was noted but was dissented from.